TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is from May 2009 to May 2010, whereas the Show Cause Notice was issued on 11.08.2011, which is clearly beyond the normal limitation period of 1 year and is required to be set aside. Accordingly, no penalties are imposable by the Appellant. So far as the admissibility of payment of Secondary and Higher Education Cess from the CENVAT Credit balance of Education Cess is concerned, it is observed from the First Proviso to Rule 3(7)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 that credit of Education Cess on excisable goods and Education Cess on taxable services, can be utilized only for payment of Education Cess on finished excisable goods or payment of Education Cess on taxable service. Accordingly, the stand of the Appellant that there is no bar o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at this stage, he is contesting the issue only on time bar nature of Show Cause Notice in demanding duty. It was his case that the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on these items was the subject matter of dispute and different Courts were giving different views on this issue. That the issue was decided by CESTAT Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Limited Vs Commissioner 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri-Del). It was his case that once an issue is resolved by the Larger Bench in the year 2010, then the extended period cannot be invoked against the Appellants for earlier periods when such credit was availed. That the demand period is from May 2009 to May 2010, whereas the Show Cause Notice is issued on 11.08.2011, which is beyond the normal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that as per the provisions of Rule 3(7)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, Secondary and Higher Education Cess cannot be debited from the CENVAT Credit balance of Education Cess. That an amount of ₹ 2,74,771.00 utilised from credit balance of Education Cess was not proper. It was also argued by the learned A.R. that an amount of ₹ 40,000.00 was taken as excess credit by the Appellant which was subsequently reversed/debited in the RG23A Part II. It was argued that the interest on this amount is required to be paid by the Appellant. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the case records. The first issue involved in these proceedings is regarding the admissibility of CENVAT Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining was disallowed by the lower authorities on the ground that the services availed also included services provided with respect to second unit situated at Silvassa and also on account of trading activity undertaken by the Appellant. It is observed from Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 that there was no restriction on distribution of credit before 17.03.2012 when Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was amended. Legally, Appellant was eligible to take CENVAT Credit on the entire amount in one unit as the period involved is prior to 17.03.2012. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE Bangalore-I Vs ECOF Industries P. Ltd 2012 (277) ELT 317 (Kar). Hon ble Karnataka High Court passed fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the Tribunal. We do not see any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. 6. In view of the above observations and the settled proposition of law, the appeals filed by the Appellant are required to be allowed on this account. 7. So far as the admissibility of payment of Secondary and Higher Education Cess from the CENVAT Credit balance of Education Cess is concerned, it is observed from the First Proviso to Rule 3(7)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 that credit of Education Cess on excisable goods and Education Cess on taxable services, can be utilized only for payment of Education Cess on finished excisable goods or payment of Education ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|